අගවිනිසුරුට, ලෙනින් රත්නායකට එරෙහිව අල්ලස් කොමිසමට පැමිණිල්ලක්
In a formal complaint dated 30 July 2002, Ivan asks the Bribery Commission to investigate magistrate Lenin Ratnayake for concealing his dismissal from the Insurance Corporation for claims fraud when becoming a lawyer and magistrate, and Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva for abusing office to protect his relative: misleading the justice minister in a confidential report, suppressing the Supreme Court inquiry into himself, derailing prosecution through an illegal one-man inquiry and withholding the three-judge committee’s findings. Numbered exhibits are listed.
කැකිල්ලේ ක්‍රමය
Ivan says the Chief Justice heard Karu Jayasuriya’s petition over biased state broadcasting despite Mary Robinson’s advice that he stand aside, then delayed it until after the election, likening this to the fabled King Kekille’s justice. Other sections mock the President’s claim of humane rule, criticise a JVP no-confidence motion against the Western Province opposition organiser, ask why the air force commander alone faces firm action, and note police corruption admitted by H.M.G.B. Kotakadeniya, urging use of the assets law.
තකට තකතකට තක
Ivan argues that under Sarath N. Silva the judiciary became an object of public disgust. Appointed by Kumaratunga while facing charges, he purged judicial officers who would not bend, as the International Bar Association mission noted, and now seeks to reinstate a magistrate found guilty of rape and fraud. He suppressed cases against the PSD and approved the PA’s pre-2000 electoral law, and Ivan warns that disputes under any settlement with the LTTE would go to a Supreme Court headed by such a man.
අගවිනිසුරු සරත් නන්ද සිල්වා සම්බන්ධයෙන් ආණ්ඩුවේ ප්‍රතිපත්තිය කුමක්ද?
Ivan calls the Kumaratunga era the most shameless assault on the Supreme Court’s independence, with a Chief Justice appointed while himself facing charges, political cases routed to benches he sat on, and dissenting judges pushed out. The UNP’s impeachment motion lapsed with the dissolution of Parliament, yet the new UNF government keeps him in office despite objections from the UN rapporteur Param Cumaraswamy, Mary Robinson, the International Commission of Jurists and the International Bar Association.
ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයට අහිමි වී තිබෙන ගෞරවය යළි ලබාදිම
The government is appointing a 19-member select committee to review the Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Ivan argues the Supreme Court has lost public respect by acting as a political tool of the executive, and that removing Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva is necessary but not enough. He proposes that the Constitutional Council be empowered to investigate serious complaints against superior court judges and recommend impeachment.
ආනමඩුවට තලගොයි පාලනය අවසන් වී කබරගොයි පාලනයක් ලැබීම
Ivan describes how in Anamaduwa the violent rule of PA strongman D.M. Dassanayake, known as ‘Thalagoya’, has been replaced after the election by that of the UNP’s Ranga Bandara, a former policeman, with nine killings, 250 injured and over 150 houses burned, while the police and the Prime Minister look away. A second section welcomes a Supreme Court ruling ordering IGP Lucky Kodituwakku and others to pay compensation personally over biased police promotions.
වැටත් නියරත් ගොයම් කා නම් කාට කියන්න ද?
The editorial argues that before bringing Prabhakaran under the law, the President, cabinet and Supreme Court must themselves respect the Constitution. It lists the caretaker government’s pay rises, regularisations, a Rs 1,000 million handout through divisional secretariats and use of state media, faults the Elections Commissioner’s inaction, and contrasts the Supreme Court’s past orders on free elections with its current dismissal of petitions under the Chief Justice.
17 වැනි ව්‍යවස්ථා සංශෝධනය හා ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය
Ivan argues that constitutional amendments should not be rushed or sent to court before the public sees the draft, citing N.M. Perera and faulting Batty Weerakoon and Jayampathy Wickramaratne. He contrasts the seven- and nine-judge benches that reviewed earlier amendments with Chief Justice Sarath N. Silva’s small benches that left out Mark Fernando, A.R.B. Amerasinghe and Ranjith Dheeraratne, and objects to his ruling that ITN, Lakhanda and Lake House, as companies, fall outside the Elections Commission’s powers.
ලෙනින් රත්නායක, උපාලි අබේරත්න පරීක්ෂණ වාර්තා ගැන “රාවය” කර්තෘගෙන් අගවිනිසුරුට ලිපියක්
In a letter dated 27 August 2001 to Sarath N. Silva as chairman of the Judicial Service Commission, Ivan asks for the reports of the two committees that found Magistrate Lenin Ratnayake and District Judge Upali Abeyratne guilty. He sets out the history: Ravaya’s 1997 reports of a rape by Ratnayake and his earlier dismissal for fraud, Silva’s 1998 confidential report to G.L. Peiris, the Abeyratne divorce case, the Bar’s past presidents’ intervention, his disbarment complaint, and Silva’s appointment and the impeachment, and says he needs the reports for a case in Geneva.
අගවිනිසුරුගේ දේශපාලන භූමිකාව
The editorial recalls Ravaya’s protest when Sarath N. Silva was appointed Chief Justice while facing complaints before the Supreme Court, and says the aim was to bring the court under the President’s control. It faults the opposition for its slow move to impeach him after the 17th Amendment episode, notes Rauff Hakeem’s refusal to back the impeachment even as his party became the first target, and reports Speaker Anura Bandaranaike’s remark that any impeachment of his sister would end with Silva deciding it.